Assessment of a Multi-Agency Approach to Drug Involved Gang Members

By Pennell, Susan

Book Id: WPLBN0000695985
Format Type: PDF eBook:
File Size: 4.05 MB
Reproduction Date: 2005

Title:	Assessment of a Multi-Agency Approach to Drug Involved Gang Members
Author:	Pennell, Susan
Volume:
Language:	English
Subject:	Law., Law & economy, Litigation and arbitration
Collections:	Law Library Collection
Historic Publication Date:
Publisher:	Department of Justice


Citation APA MLA Chicago Pennell, B. S. (n.d.). Assessment of a Multi-Agency Approach to Drug Involved Gang Members. Retrieved from http://gutenberg.cc/

Description
Legal Reference Publication

Excerpt
Excerpt: With the upsurge of narcotics trafficking in the mid-80s, many areas in the country developed multi-jurisdictional task forces with federal assistance. The task forces varied as to levels of government involved, (e. g . , federal, state, municipal), types of agencies included (e. g . , law enforcement, prosecutor, community agencies), and targets for focus (high level drug traffickers, mid-level dealers, street-level users). Assessments of these programs have been primarily process-oriented conducted by the program staff and include a compilation of drug arrests and seizures. In very recent years, specialized task forces have directed their efforts toward gangs and associated drug trafficking. This assessment reflects an evaluation of such a task force in San Diego, California. In 1988, with funds from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) via the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1987, the task force, JUDGE, or Jurisdictions Unified for Drug Gang Enforcement, was spearheaded by the District Attorney?s Office and represented a unique blend of police officers, probation officers, and deputy district attorneys working together to target documented gang members also involved in drug use and sales. The JUDGE approach targeted juveniles for strict enforcement of probation conditions and identification of possible targets not yet on probation. JUDGE is a multi-jurisdictional task force responsible for the entire county of San Diego, housed within the probation department with staff operating in a plainclothes capacity.

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 CHAPTER1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Research Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Research Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Research Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Site Descriptidl . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 . . . CHAPTER 2: PROGRAM DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 History and Background of Multi-agency Task Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Task Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task Forces By State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Responses to Gangs and Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Judge Program Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Vertical Prosecution (District Attorney) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Narcotics Task Force (Probation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Special Enforcement Operation (Police) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Prosecutors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Probation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Program Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 CHAPTER 3: STUDY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Process Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 JUDGE Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Arrest Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Prosecution Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Probation Conditions and Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51